Page 290 - Chayei Adam LAYOUT sivan 5782

Chayei Adam - K’lal 146 - Laws of the Succah

not refer to this case because land cannot be stolen, and this is really a borrowed
succah. 192 Similarly, one cannot say that [the Torah refers to a case] where he
stole wood and built a succah, because although by Torah law he might not fulfill
his obligation since he is obligated to return it, nevertheless, Chazal legislated
that he isn’t required to disassemble his succah and return it, but rather pay for
the wood instead. 193 If so, when he pays for the wood, it is no longer considered a
stolen succah since Chazal have the power to declare his property ownerless,
because of ‘hefker beis din hefker’. Rather the only case [of a stolen succah] is if
he doesn’t pay for the wood he stole, 194 or if Reuvein built a succah on a wagon or

ship and Shimon stole it by throwing Reuvein out; 195 for in such a case the
enactment made for teshuva doesn’t apply and the succah is not valid by Torah
law. Similarly, if Reuvein built a succcah on Shimon’s property and Shimon threw
Reuvein out of his succah, as this would constitute a stolen succah since it doesn’t
stand on Reuvein’s property. 196 Even if Reuvein built it with Shimon’s consent in

םדו רשב
that this is only true when the owner isn’t (Biur HaGra).
sitting in his succah. When he is there, he likely
might want privacy and one cannot assume 193. By Torah law, if someone steals an
object, he must return it. Only if it is no longer
that he is happy to let others share it with intact (i.e. it was consumed or altered), does
him. However others claim that a person
might want constant access to his succah and the thief simply pay the value of what he stole.
This being the case, a thief who stole wood
one may not borrow a succah, even if it is not
being used at the moment, if there is any and used it in building a house, would have to
disassemble the house in order to return the
concern that the owner may come at any wood, and he would be deterred from
given moment. (Elya Rabba, Pri Megadim,
Birkei Yosef) The Mishna Berura rules in repenting and mending his ways. In order to
encourage teshuva (by making it easier),
accordance with this approach. Chazal relied on their power to dissolve
סק

192. Since land cannot be stolen, it falls ownership (see Gitin 36b for the source and
into the category of a borrowed succah. discussion of ‘hefker beis din hefker’) and
Nevertheless, borrowing without permission is enacted that he need only pay the value of the
tantamount to a minor level of theft and is wood he stole. (This concept is discussed in
forbidden. When the Chachamim say (Succah several places in the Talmud. See for example,
31a) that it is valid, they mean that b’dieved, he Bava Kama 94b.) The same takana
is considered to have fulfilled his obligation. (enactment) applies to one who used wood in

291